> On Jan 22, 2022, at 11:13, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2022, at 09:36, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> I have no idea of the difficulty of such a change, but it would be
>> interesting if Portfiles contained a release date, and the database of
>> installed ports had both a
On Jan 22, 2022, at 09:36, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> I have no idea of the difficulty of such a change, but it would be
> interesting if Portfiles contained a release date, and the database of
> installed ports had both a copy of that for any given installed version, and
> perhaps the
On Jan 22, 2022, at 09:06, Gabriel Rosenkoetter wrote:
>
> On 2022-01-22 09:10 EST, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> The use of the "+" character is intentional.
>> "+" means a variant is enabled. "-" means a variant is disabled.
>> "[ ]" around either "+" or "-" means the choice comes from the port's
I have no idea of the difficulty of such a change, but it would be interesting
if Portfiles contained a release date, and the database of installed ports had
both a copy of that for any given installed version, and perhaps the date of
installation.
> On Jan 22, 2022, at 10:22, Gabriel
On Jan 22, 2022, at 09:22, Gabriel Rosenkoetter wrote:
>> If we stick with multiple perl versions, and the perl5 port to create the
>> symlinks, then maybe it would indeed help reduce some confusion to change
>> the perl5 port's version to 1.0, or a MMDD date, or anything else that
>> is
On 2022-01-22 09:14 EST, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 22, 2022, at 01:15, Gabriel Rosenkoetter wrote:
On 2022-01-22 01:28 EST, Kastus Shchuka wrote:
$ port echo installed and perl5
perl5 @5.26.1_0+perl5_28
perl5 @5.28.3_0+perl5_28
perl5
On 2022-01-22 09:10 EST, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
The use of the "+" character is intentional.
"+" means a variant is enabled. "-" means a variant is disabled.
"[ ]" around either "+" or "-" means the choice comes from the port's default_variants directives. "( )" around either
"+" or "-" means
On Jan 22, 2022, at 01:15, Gabriel Rosenkoetter wrote:
>
> On 2022-01-22 01:28 EST, Kastus Shchuka wrote:
>> $ port echo installed and perl5
>> perl5 @5.26.1_0+perl5_28
>> perl5 @5.28.3_0+perl5_28
>> perl5
On Jan 22, 2022, at 00:28, Kastus Shchuka wrote:
>
> Please note a clash of terms as there is port action "installed" and port
> pseudo-portname "installed". That is why "port installed" is a valid syntax
> ("installed" is an action here), while "port active" is not. You have to use
> action
On Jan 21, 2022, at 23:32, Gabriel Rosenkoetter wrote:
>
> I think the [+] label, in the output of `port info ` is a confusing
> UI/UX choice, especially in the context of the + as an argument to `port
> install +_version` to request activation of a specific Port
> version.
>
> I think
On Jan 21, 2022, at 22:48, Kastus Shchuka wrote:
> This is for example what I have:
>
> $ port installed and perl5
port installed perl5
"installed" is the command, "perl5" is the list of ports the command will
operate on.
> The following ports are currently installed:
> perl5
On Jan 21, 2022, at 19:43, Gabriel Rosenkoetter wrote:
> I'm… also not sure it's even actually a good idea, since, in my experience,
> Perl is much more flexible about newer versions of `perl` functioning with
> "out-dated" versions of libraries *and* vice versa than, say, PHP is. (I
> think
12 matches
Mail list logo
